 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / April 2008"their" as singular
On Apr 15, 2:23 am, John Crinnion <jcrinn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 14 Apr, 21:22, "Fluxman" <jimfo...@cox.net> wrote: > > > "John Crinnion" <jcrinn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > <SNIP> > > I believe it would be proper to walk out if to do otherwise would result in > > someone losing their life. > > ("Their" life, forsooth!) A linguistics professor, no less, at UC Berkeley (I would mention his name if I remembered it) told me he likes this usage. After all what is one to do? "His or her" sometimes passes but it's continual usage is jarring; the traditional custom that "his" serves both sexes is increasingly dissonant with the times (but perhaps less so in the UK than US). Doug Hofstadter, a determined non-sexist writer, solves the problem by finding a complete rephrasing, but that's a lot of work. To me "their" sounds ok, though more so in some instances than others. Charles > On Apr 15, 2:23 am, John Crinnion <jcrinn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > problem by finding a complete rephrasing, but that's a lot of work. To > me "their" sounds ok, though more so in some instances than others. In that instance, "result in someone losing their life", it sounds just right, to me. -- John > On Apr 15, 2:23 am, John Crinnion <jcrinn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Charles The day "themself" is added to the English dictionary, I will begin accepting "their" as a singular pronoun. ...OK, I'll admit, I DO use "their" as a person and I therefore like to use "themself" sometimes also (the person must do their homework by themself). If we don't step in and start using it, the dictionary will never change. In article <f4cc83a0-3c8f-4a69-a980-7b9bc37334cb@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > ...OK, I'll admit, I DO use "their" as a person and I therefore like > to use "themself" sometimes also (the person must do their homework by > themself). If we don't step in and start using it, the dictionary > will never change. It has. Oxford American Dictionary has it as definition #2 for "they" and "their".  SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** > In article > <f4cc83a0-3c8f-4a69-a980-7b9bc3733...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It has. Oxford American Dictionary has it as definition #2 for "they" > and "their". Oxford American Dictionary? The whole idea seems a bit oxymoronic... a group of erudite British scholars who no doubt think we over here have totally mangled their language ("There even are places where English completely disappears... In America, they haven't used it for years!" -- Henry Higgins, in _My Fair Lady_) putting together a dictionary to document how much we've mangled it. I can certainly imagine the editors of this dictionary composing an entry about the American usage of a word and snickering derisively as they do so. "'Themself'---yes, let's include that, it sounds like a word an *American* would use, snicker snicker!" I'll have to do some research before I can decide whether I trust this dictionary. :) :) :) -- Adam > > In article > > <f4cc83a0-3c8f-4a69-a980-7b9bc3733...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > -- Adam As someone who has spent more years editing publications than I'd like to admit, allow me to link this snippet from the Oxford English Dictionary: Link: http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/classicerrors/grammartips/hesheorthey?view=uk Text: He, She, or They? People are increasingly using the plural pronoun they to refer to one person if they do not know whether that person is male or female. Until quite recently, he was generally used to refer to a person of either sex, as in 'Every child needs to know that he is loved', but nowadays many people feel that such a use is sexist. He or she is possible, but is rather awkward. They is generally accepted in sentences using words such as someone or anyone, e.g. 'Anyone can join if they are a resident'. More people object to they being used after a single noun, as in 'Ask a friend if they can help'. Interestingly, use of they in this way is not a modern invention: it was first recorded in the 16th century. *********** I was not aware that this usage went back to the 16th century, but I am not at all surprised that the convention whereby a plural pronoun is used to refer back to a gender-unknown antecedent has made its way into the OED. The alternatives 'he or she / his or her' or, God forbid, 's/he' are far worse in my opinion. Henrysun909 >> > In article >> > <f4cc83a0-3c8f-4a69-a980-7b9bc3733...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > into the OED. The alternatives 'he or she / his or her' or, God > forbid, 's/he' are far worse in my opinion. Or at least equally bad. Would a good writer use any of these in a formal text? It is almost always easy to avoid such ugly constructions, e.g. in the three examples quoted: Children need to know that they are loved. Any resident can join. Ask a friend for help. > <henrysun909@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag >> Link: >> http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/classicerrors/grammartips/hesheorthey?view=uk [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Or at least equally bad. Would a good writer use any of these in > a formal text? Yes. those who have used it include Chesterfield, Austen, Thackeray, Shaw, Ruskin, Orwell... google "singular they" and you'll find abundant evidence of its use by respected writers over the last 400 years or more. Its use needs care, if too obvious a clash between a singular antecedent and the formally plural pronoun is to be avoided, but there is no doubt that it is correct English. >> <henrysun909@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/classicerrors/grammartips/hesheorthey?view=uk >>> Text: >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > singular antecedent and the formally plural pronoun is to be avoided, > but there is no doubt that it is correct English. Not "correct". "Used" in careless moments by otherwise careful writers. Or perhaps those who would find the replacements burdensome and distracting from the main idea. [re singular "they"] >>>> He, She, or They? >>> Or at least equally bad. Would a good writer use any of these in >>> a formal text? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Or perhaps those who would find the replacements burdensome and > distracting from the main idea. Rubbish. The only people who object to it are those who seek to impose a rigidly logical structure on the language. Grammatical rules are deduced from what people say and write. When a supposed "rule" conflicts with actual usage, it's the rule that's wrong, not the usage. Personally, I have no hesitation in following the practice of writers such as the ones I mentioned earlier, rather than some idiot grammarian who doesn't actually understand the way the language really works. > [re singular "they"] >>>>> He, She, or They? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > grammarian who doesn't actually understand the way the language really > works. You have just restated a position I took only the other day. I don't impose rules based on grammar. I expect common, ordinary, run-of-the-mill usage to hold sway. As for the "practice of writers such as the ones I mentioned earlier", you might do a count on how many examples in the works of each to prove that their cited usage is their ordinary usage, and how many are extraodinary and careless lapses of their normal usage. You might also draw some kind of line as to when the sources you refer to wrote, and when the rules of writing developed. Remember, grammar and usage rules were probably imposed on students using those very writers as examples. Usage? Is formal writing to be confused with usage? Rather, you might blame faulty editing for lapses in the actions of the saints. > As for the "practice of writers such as the ones I mentioned earlier", > you might do a count on how many examples in the works of each to prove [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Usage? Is formal writing to be confused with usage? Rather, you might > blame faulty editing for lapses in the actions of the saints. This is such complete and utter nonsense that I can hardly be bothered to reply. The writers I mentioned are a tiny subset of those who routinely use singular they. The idea that it's some kind of editing oversight, like a spelling error or misplaced comma, is simply absurd. > > As for the "practice of writers such as the ones I mentioned earlier", > > you might do a count on how many examples in the works of each to prove [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > routinely use singular they. The idea that it's some kind of editing > oversight, like a spelling error or misplaced comma, is simply absurd. Austen used this construction frequently. It also appears in the King James Bible several times. The nodding-Homer argument is usually used to justify ignoring inconvenient evidence. Allowing some sort of frequency criterion at least has the benefit of acknowledging the principle that the rules of English grammar should bear some resemblance to actual English. That is itself a concession. Richard R. Hershberger > > As for the "practice of writers such as the ones I mentioned earlier", > > you might do a count on how many examples in the works of each to prove [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > routinely use singular they. The idea that it's some kind of editing > oversight, like a spelling error or misplaced comma, is simply absurd. I'm having some trouble following the dialog, having missed much of the thread. I apologize if this duplicates something previously posted. I think it's worth risking the commission of an AOL to add this to the thread. I submit that people use singular they either because they have no reason to think there's anything wrong with it or because they've decided, in a given instance, that it's better than anything else readily available. Language Log has a pair of interesting recent postings on singular they, one showing that Canadian officials have taken to using "singular they" for purposes of clarity, the other discussing a usage in which "they" is used to avoid revealing the sex of one specific person whose identity the write doesn't want to reveal. I myself draw the line at "Each pregnant woman should consult their own doctor" or "Each prostate cancer patient needs to take their medications daily." But when an epicene pronoun is needed, I've surrendered. I go with "they" if the result doesn't strike me as downright ludicrous, and otherwise write around. The links to the two LL postings are: <http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=26> and <http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=58> Bob Lieblich: > Language Log has a pair of interesting recent postings on singular > they, one showing that Canadian officials have taken to using > "singular they" for purposes of clarity ... Of course they have an advantage: they're writing laws, which means that the Interpretation Act <http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/I-21> applies, and according to subsection 33(2), words in the singular include the plural and vice versa. Thus the sort of stupid complaint that started this thread is neatly forestalled! SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | Typos are a journalistic tradition of long msb@vex.net | etaoin shrdlu. -- Truly Donovan >>> <henrysun909@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag >>>> I was not aware that this usage went back to the 16th century, but I >>>> am not at all surprised that the convention whereby a plural pronoun >>>> is used to refer back to a gender-unknown antecedent has made its >>>> way into the OED. The alternatives 'he or she / his or her' or, God >>>> forbid, 's/he' are far worse in my opinion. >>> Or at least equally bad. Would a good writer use any of these in >>> a formal text? >> Yes. those who have used it include Chesterfield, Austen, Thackeray, >> Shaw, Ruskin, Orwell... google "singular they" and you'll find >> abundant evidence of its use by respected writers over the last 400 >> years or more. Its use needs care, if too obvious a clash between a >> singular antecedent and the formally plural pronoun is to be avoided, >> but there is no doubt that it is correct English. > Not "correct". "Used" in careless moments by otherwise careful writers. Or > perhaps those who would find the replacements burdensome and distracting from > the main idea. The fact that it is used carelessly when people aren't thinking indicates it is what comes naturally. That is how natural language works, some things sound right, some things don't, and that changes slowly over the years. If something sounds right and people use it naturally even though some sticklers insist it's wrong, it's an indication that the language has changed, and if what sounds right fits a useful need, then maybe we should just accept it. Matthew Huntbach >> Yes. those who have used it include Chesterfield, Austen, Thackeray, >> Shaw, Ruskin, Orwell... google "singular they" and you'll find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Or perhaps those who would find the replacements burdensome and > distracting from the main idea. I agree. Good writers sometimes make spelling mistakes too, but that doesn't make them canonical alternative spellings. SignatureThis sig no verb. > >> Yes. those who have used it include Chesterfield, Austen, Thackeray, > >> Shaw, Ruskin, Orwell... google "singular they" and you'll find [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I agree. Good writers sometimes make spelling mistakes too, but that > doesn't make them canonical alternative spellings. But if a significant number of good writers frequently make the same spelling mistake, it will likely become an accepted spelling. I predict that we're within a generation of "it's" becoming an accepted spelling of the possessive of "it". We might even start to see dictionaries incorporating some of the most common text-messaging abbreviations (e.g. LOL, CUL) pretty soon. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** > I predict that we're within a generation of "it's" becoming an > accepted spelling of the possessive of "it". Again. The OED quotations are its: 1598, 1620, 1634, 1750, 1834, 1879 it's: 1603, 1605, 1611, 1623, 1655, 1728, 1802. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Its like grasping the difference 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |between what one usually considers Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a 'difficult' problem, and what |*is* a difficult problem. The day kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |one understands *why* counting all (650)857-7572 |the molecules in the Universe isn't |difficult...there's the leap. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Tina Marie Holmboe >> <henrysun909@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > formally plural pronoun is to be avoided, but there is no doubt that it is > correct English. Surprisingly Fowler (1926) has an article on the subject and he also mentions as a possible motive avoidance of the cumbersome 'he or she' and its analogues. Moreover, "the OED says nothing more severe of the use than that it is 'Not favored by grammarians'". So the problem has been around a long time without resolution. Today more people than formerly are conscious of the fact that it makes no sense to exclude women from consideration, regardless of the opinion of the grammarians. > Today more people than formerly are conscious of the fact > that it makes no sense to exclude women from consideration, > regardless of the opinion of the grammarians. So when are you guys going to get rid of the masculine and feminine genders you put on two-thirds of *everything*? Aren't you excluding female dogs and male cats from consideration? -- Adam >> Today more people than formerly are conscious of the fact >> that it makes no sense to exclude women from consideration, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > feminine genders you put on two-thirds of *everything*? Aren't > you excluding female dogs and male cats from consideration? Your average Frenchman replaces 'two-thirds' with '100%'. They have female dogs and male cats, together with the other forms. :-) Signature[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.games.bridge.] : Your average Frenchman replaces 'two-thirds' with '100%'. They : have female dogs and male cats, together with the other forms. :-) There is a difference here, between sex and gender and feminine/masculine and female/male. French manages to do this rather consistently. A «person» is for instance feminine, hence in the dedication in «Le Petit Prince» uses the feminine pronoun refering to «this person», who has already been named and clearly identified as male. Not a problem -- most of the time the pronouns do not refer to sexes. :-- Hans Georg http://www.ii.uib.no/~georg/ `This Universe never did make sense; I suspect that it was built on government contract.' (Heinlein) > Moreover, "the OED says nothing more severe of the use > than that it is 'Not favored by grammarians'". These are the same finicky grammarians who also frown on splitting infinitives (which derives from the irrelevant fact that infinitives in Latin and romance languages are single words) and ending sentences with prepositions, right? SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** >> Moreover, "the OED says nothing more severe of the use >> than that it is 'Not favored by grammarians'". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > infinitives in Latin and romance languages are single words) and > ending sentences with prepositions, right? This is a manipulation up with which I will not put. :-) Signature[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > [ ... ] >> Yes. those who have used it include Chesterfield, Austen, Thackeray, >> Shaw, Ruskin, Orwell... google "singular they" and you'll find abundant [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Surprisingly Fowler (1926) has an article on the subject Not surprising in the least. It just confirms that singular "they" has been around for centuries, as others have already pointed out. It's only to be expected that Fowler was aware of the usage in 1926. > and he also > mentions as a possible motive avoidance of the cumbersome [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that it makes no sense to exclude women from consideration, > regardless of the opinion of the grammarians. Signatureathel On 2008-04-16, Jürgen R wrote: > Surprisingly Fowler (1926) has an article on the subject and he also > mentions as a possible motive avoidance of the cumbersome [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that it makes no sense to exclude women from consideration, > regardless of the opinion of the grammarians. But people who speak languages with grammatical gender (I'm guessing from your forename that you're in that set) have no problem with things like "Madame Leblanc est un professeur" and "das Mädchen", so why shouldn't speakers of English just accept using either "he" or "she" in a general sense? (I say "he" or "she" because I'm thinking of textbooks that alternate the examples between chapters.) SignatureDo you know what they do to book thieves up at Santa Rita? http://www.shigabooks.com/indeces/bookhunter.html > On 2008-04-16, Jürgen R wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> that it makes no sense to exclude women from consideration, >> regardless of the opinion of the grammarians. > But people who speak languages with grammatical gender (I'm guessing > from your forename that you're in that set) have no problem with > things like "Madame Leblanc est un professeur" and "das Mädchen", so > why shouldn't speakers of English just accept using either "he" or > "she" in a general sense? Because English doesn't have a grammatical gender separate from actual gender, so we therefore lack the capacity to separate the two in this case. When "he" is used to mean "he or she", although we may know that it can refer to the latter, our minds confuse it with the former, and it tends to lead to the thought, unconscious though it may be, that the person so-named ought to be a male, and if it's a female it's some sort of abnormal exception. Note that while the grammatical sticklers tell us that "he" may be used for "he or she", in old texts when gender specific roles in society were take for granted, "she" was used for a non-specific person of a role which would normally be taken by a female though could be taken by a male e.g. a nurse. This is a good indication that "he" for a non-specific person was not quite so gender neutral as the sticklers claim it could be. Matthew Huntbach > On 2008-04-16, Jürgen R wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > from your forename that you're in that set) have no problem with > things like "Madame Leblanc est un professeur" True enough in France, but I understand that in Quebec and Belgium they've been busy inventing new terms like "la professeuse" to fill the much needed gap. They seem to be moving in the opposite direction from the people who insist that there is no actresses any more, just actors. Signatureathel >> Or at least equally bad. Would a good writer use any of these in >> a formal text? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > singular antecedent and the formally plural pronoun is to be avoided, > but there is no doubt that it is correct English. One Henry Churchyard, formerly of this parish, has a very good page on this subject with numerous examples: http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >Fred Springer wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >this subject with numerous examples: >http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html Frankly, that's disappointing. I thought it would be Søren Kierkegaard in English. Either/or, at any rate. SignaturePaul > >Fred Springer wrote: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Frankly, that's disappointing. I thought it would be Søren Kierkegaard > in English. Either/or, at any rate. That last post is too cryptic for me. What are you talking about, please? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote: >> >Fred Springer wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >That last post is too cryptic for me. What are you talking about, >please? Sorry. It was getting late and I had stopped careful thinking by the time I wrote that. No disrespect to our Mr Churchyard, but I think of Kierkegaard as Mr Churchyard. Doesn't his name mean that in Danish? He is (was) a man of interesting ideas, and a penchant for pseudonyms. An important book of his was (is) entitled Either/Or. SignaturePaul > <henrysun909@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag [...] >> I was not aware that this usage went back to the 16th century, but I >> am not at all surprised that the convention whereby a plural pronoun [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Or at least equally bad. Would a good writer use any of these in > a formal text? Many of OED's examples come from good writers: Fielding, Chesterfield, Bagehot, Ruskin. As for "their", that's been applied to singulars since the fourteenth century. Dost thou deprecate the singular "yourself"? SignatureMike. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** wrote >> > In article >> > <f4cc83a0-3c8f-4a69-a980-7b9bc3733...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >into the OED. The alternatives 'he or she / his or her' or, God >forbid, 's/he' are far worse in my opinion. The sad thing is, that when a word is needed, people misuse another word with a different meaning, rather than get a new word. Chairman is a sexless word - my mother would have been very insulted in her various Committees if anyone had dared to call her Chairwoman, rather than Lady Chairman, but not half as insulted as if someone had called her a piece of wood, ie a Chair - and Chairperson is a stupid and uncomfortable term. Why not invent the term "pon" - obviously a contraction of person - as a suffix? Then you could have a Chairpon, Postpon, Firepon and so on. Certainly 'he or she' is ungainly, and s/he is not pronounceable differently from she. But as a solution, 'they' stinks: misuse is not a sensible solution. One :) could follow the French and use 'one', but in this country, we *never* follow the French. Perhaps we could use the same word. It needs to be short, not confused with something else: so let us use 'pon', short for person [still] to mean he or she. I think it acceptable for it to be ok as an object too, and 'pons' for his or hers. What would you lead from KJ642? At the table, pon led the 6. Pons partner told pon that pon was an idiot. SignatureDavid Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak666@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm > Chairman is a sexless word - my mother would have been very insulted in her > various Committees if anyone had dared to call her Chairwoman, rather than > Lady Chairman, but not half as insulted as if someone had called her a piece > of wood, ie a Chair - and Chairperson is a stupid and uncomfortable term. > Why not invent the term "pon" - obviously a contraction of person - as a > suffix? Then you could have a Chairpon, Postpon, Firepon and so on. There's a long history of the symbol of office being used to refer to the office itself - "chair" fits in with this. It is very similar to the word "bench" being used to refer to a body of judges. No-one says "oh, hah-hah, how silly to refer to those judges as a piece of wood". And no-one say "oh, hah-hah, how silly to refer to our government as personalised by the Head of State as a piece of metal". > Certainly 'he or she' is ungainly, and s/he is not pronounceable > differently from she. But as a solution, 'they' stinks: misuse is not a > sensible solution. One :) could follow the French and use 'one', but in this > country, we *never* follow the French. It may stink, but in practice it's what people do. It has a widespread use and is long-established. > Perhaps we could use the same word. It needs to be short, not confused > with something else: so let us use 'pon', short for person [still] to mean he > or she. I think it acceptable for it to be ok as an object too, and 'pons' > for his or hers. There have been many attempts to invent new gender-free pronouns and suffixes and the like. They do not work - language just cannot be changed artificially in that way. Matthew Huntbach >> Chairman is a sexless word - my mother would have been very insulted in >> her various Committees if anyone had dared to call her Chairwoman, rather [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > suffixes and the like. They do not work - language just cannot be changed > artificially in that way. Right - and in due time the use of 'they' as a singular will either disappear or become established. It will then no longer seem either odd or wrong - after all, 'you' is a precedent. At the moment the problem is that 'they' as a singular is still odd enough to draw attention when attention to this particular issue is not sought, e.g. for reasons of style in a formal text. > Matthew Huntbach > "Matthew Huntbach" <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag >>> Perhaps we could use the same word. It needs to be short, not confused >>> with something else: so let us use 'pon', short for person [still] to mean >>> he or she. I think it acceptable for it to be ok as an object too, and >>> 'pons' for his or hers. >> There have been many attempts to invent new gender-free pronouns and >> suffixes and the like. They do not work - language just cannot be changed >> artificially in that way. > Right - and in due time the use of 'they' as a singular will either > disappear or become established. It will then no longer seem > either odd or wrong - after all, 'you' is a precedent. If anyone has access to today's "Metro" newspaper, there's a fine example in its "News from the Molehill" slot. This is a little section in which allegations about some celebrity are printed, with the celebrity not being named to avoid any chance of libel action. In today's slot the celebrity in question was repeatedly referred to by "they/them/their" in order to hide also whether it was a male or female person. Matthew Huntbach > <...> > Right - and in due time the use of 'they' as a singular will either > disappear or become established. <...> It is very old, very established, very deep-rooted, and every bit as English as singular "you". So is the tradition of sneering at it. It is completely possible that the current situation will continue for centuries. Finger-wagging prescriptivists cherish that sort of grammatical mental masturbation. I assume that the Miss Prims who detest singular "they" will approve of such constructions as "Every feminist hopes in his heart that he will live to see a new era." After all, there is at least one male feminist, dontcha know. Prescriptivists of that stripe are essentially anti-English, and they are silly, silly people. >"Jürgen R." <jurgenr@web.de> wrote >> <...> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Prescriptivists of that stripe are essentially anti-English, and they are >silly, silly people. A lot of people produce very sensible and helpful arguments, both for and against the subject. But there is always one, who is clearly too stupid to have any ideas himself, so resorts to calling people who disagree with him 'Miss Prims', 'sill, silly people' and so non. It always sounds as though such a person is describing himself. SignatureDavid Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak666@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm > It is very old, very established, very deep-rooted, and every bit as English > as singular "you". So is the tradition of sneering at it. It is completely [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > constructions as "Every feminist hopes in his heart that he will live to see > a new era." After all, there is at least one male feminist, dontcha know. Mr. Prims, more likely, aren't they? The only people I've heard really get worked up about its use are men. SignatureSML >Mr. Prims, more likely, aren't they? The only people I've heard really >get worked up about its use are men. At my high school it was, aptly enough, Mrs. Petty. http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/arkville.html "I felt like I was in a ¬R demented Wallace Stevens poem, with food poisoning." Spalding Gray > Right - and in due time the use of 'they' as a singular will either > disappear or become established. It will then no longer seem > either odd or wrong - after all, 'you' is a precedent. For many of us, it is already established and has never seemed odd or wrong. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary Matthew Huntbach filted: >> Perhaps we could use the same word. It needs to be short, not confused >>with something else: so let us use 'pon', short for person [still] to mean he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >suffixes and the like. They do not work - language just cannot be changed >artificially in that way. What if the gender-free pronoun were "sb"?...r SignatureWhat good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone? > Matthew Huntbach filted: > >There have been many attempts to invent new gender-free pronouns and > >suffixes and the like. They do not work - language just cannot be changed > >artificially in that way. > > What if the gender-free pronoun were "sb"?...r That's the problem with Usenet -- we can't throw things at other posters. (Or rather we can, but there's a slim chance of them actually hitting the target.) SignatureSML >> Matthew Huntbach filted: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > posters. (Or rather we can, but there's a slim chance of them actually > hitting the target.) Deeply frustrating, innit? And you can't hug 'em, neither. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > Matthew Huntbach filted: >>> Perhaps we could use the same word. It needs to be short, not confused >>> with something else: so let us use 'pon', short for person [still] to mean he >>> or she. I think it acceptable for it to be ok as an object too, and 'pons' >>> for his or hers. >> There have been many attempts to invent new gender-free pronouns and >> suffixes and the like. They do not work - language just cannot be changed >> artificially in that way. > What if the gender-free pronoun were "sb"?...r A shortening of an existing three-syllable word, and still pronounced as that word. For the same reason that "he or she" doesn't work - the odd use, yes, repeated use in one sentence, no, sounds clumsy. Matthew Huntbach >What if the gender-free pronoun were "sb"?...r That makes me think of the Gestapo (Special Branch). SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Stevenson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >"oh, hah-hah, how silly to refer to our government as personalised by >the Head of State as a piece of metal". Judges are referred to as sitting on the bench, which is hardly the same. As for our government, I refer to the head of state as a 'queen', not anything to do with metal. >> Perhaps we could use the same word. It needs to be short, not >>confused with something else: so let us use 'pon', short for person [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >suffixes and the like. They do not work - language just cannot be changed >artificially in that way. Rubbish: the media has changed language artificially a lot, and continues to do so. *They* certainly have the power to make such a change. SignatureDavid Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak666@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm >>On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Stevenson wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Judges are referred to as sitting on the bench, which is hardly the >same. > As for our government, I refer to the head of state as a 'queen', >not anything to do with metal. In person she is a queen, but the (metallic and gemstoned) "crown" is used for the non-personal concept of supreme legal authority in the realm. (I hope I've worded that adequately.) Crown Copyright, The Crown Estate, Crown Court, Officer of the Crown, etc.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown [1] In this case "etc" is short for "et coroner". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) [...] ">> >>There's a long history of the symbol of office being used to refer to the >>office itself - "chair" fits in with this. It is very similar to the word [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Judges are referred to as sitting on the bench, which is hardly the > same. from Webster's: bench... 2 a : the seat where a judge sits in court b : the place where justice is administered : COURT c : the office or dignity of a judge *sat on the bench for 20 years* d : the persons who sit as judges 3 a : the office or dignity of an official b : a seat for an official c : the officials occupying a bench [...] >> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Stevenson wrote: >>> Chairman is a sexless word - my mother would have been very insulted in >>> her various Committees if anyone had dared to call her Chairwoman, rather [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> contraction of person - as a suffix? Then you could have a Chairpon, >>> Postpon, Firepon and so on. >> There's a long history of the symbol of office being used to refer to the >> office itself - "chair" fits in with this. It is very similar to the word >> "bench" being used to refer to a body of judges. No-one says "oh, hah-hah, >> how silly to refer to those judges as a piece of wood". And no-one say >> "oh, hah-hah, how silly to refer to our government as personalised by >> the Head of State as a piece of metal". > Judges are referred to as sitting on the bench, which is hardly the same. Oh, for heaven's sake, do a Google on something like "the bench decided" and see numerous examples of the word "bench" referring to the officials sitting on it. Random example: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=20847§ioncode=1 > As for our government, I refer to the head of state as a 'queen', not > anything to do with metal. Oh, really, you have never heard the word "the Crown" used to refer to the government? >>> Perhaps we could use the same word. It needs to be short, not confused >>> with something else: so let us use 'pon', short for person [still] to mean >>> he or she. I think it acceptable for it to be ok as an object too, and >>> 'pons' for his or hers. >> There have been many attempts to invent new gender-free pronouns and >> suffixes and the like. They do not work - language just cannot be changed >> artificially in that way. > Rubbish: the media has changed language artificially a lot, and continues > to do so. *They* certainly have the power to make such a change. Something as fundamental as new pronouns, no. Matthew Huntbach >On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Stevenson wrote: >> Rubbish: the media has changed language artificially a lot, and >>continues to do so. *They* certainly have the power to make such a >>change. > >Something as fundamental as new pronouns, no. You really do have your head in the clouds. They regularly change the meaning of words, they get people to believe the exact opposite of the case, they get people to believe in a new millennium on the wrong date, they have trained people to lie and cheat and steal: of course they could introduce a new pronoun! SignatureDavid Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak666@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm >>On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Stevenson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > they have trained people to lie and cheat and steal: of course they could > introduce a new pronoun! Truly a dark, evil conspiracy. >> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Stevenson wrote: >>> Rubbish: the media has changed language artificially a lot, and >>> continues to do so. *They* certainly have the power to make such a >>> change. >> Something as fundamental as new pronouns, no. > You really do have your head in the clouds. They regularly change the > meaning of words, they get people to believe the exact opposite of the case, > they get people to believe in a new millennium on the wrong date, they have > trained people to lie and cheat and steal: of course they could introduce a > new pronoun! I rather think it is you with your head in the clouds with your idea that the fundamental structure of language can be changed by diktat. It's like changing any construction - changing surface elements is far more easily done than changing the deep structure, and pronouns are part of the deep structure of a langage in a way which vocabulary items like "millennium" are not. Even then, vocabularly changes seem to need to fit in with psychology, that is some work because they fit in with common mistakes or the way people are thinking, sone don't. It cannot just be done arbitrarily in the way you suggest. The millennium thing obviously works because it seems obvious that thw change of the whole way we write a year from starting it with 19 to starting it with 20 is significant, it wouldn't be neary so easy to engineer a reversal by diktat to make people believe the 2000-2001 transition is the big one, even though your simplistic logic tells you it is. Matthew Huntbach >On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, David Stevenson wrote: >>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Stevenson wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >a reversal by diktat to make people believe the 2000-2001 transition is >the big one, even though your simplistic logic tells you it is. Of course it is not changeable by diktat, and "It cannot just be done arbitrarily in the way you suggest" seems to show you have missed the point completely. The media changes nothing in the way you suggest, and that strangely you think I suggest. It does so by the carrot and stick technique: offering the world [or at least nubile young females and really difficult competitions, eg Who was the first US president to enjoy his aides: A Mahatma Ghandi; B Bill Clinton; C Margaret Thatcher] on one side, and scorn and active dislike on the other [the Community Charge in England was a reasonable way to raise money locally for local authorities, but got called the Poll Tax - even though it was not - and ridiculed out of use]. SignatureDavid Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682 <webjak666@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm >> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, David Stevenson wrote: >>>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Stevenson wrote: >>>>> Rubbish: the media has changed language artificially a lot, and >>>>> continues to do so. *They* certainly have the power to make such a >>>> Something as fundamental as new pronouns, no. >>> You really do have your head in the clouds. They regularly change the >>> meaning of words, they get people to believe the exact opposite of the >>> case, they get people to believe in a new millennium on the wrong date, >>> they have trained people to lie and cheat and steal: of course they >>> could introduce a new pronoun! >> I rather think it is you with your head in the clouds with your idea that >> the fundamental structure of language can be changed by diktat. > Of course it is not changeable by diktat, and "It cannot just be done > arbitrarily in the way you suggest" seems to show you have missed the point [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > was a reasonable way to raise money locally for local authorities, but got > called the Poll Tax - even though it was not - and ridiculed out of use]. Yes, introducing fobble new vocabulary item or subtly changing the meaning of fobble existing one is something that can be done, introducing fobble new pronoun can't. Fobble new vocabulary items might occur once or twice in fobble article, but fobble new pronoun would need to occur many times and so would make fobble article look ridiculous, it just cannot be done (as in my example here where I am trying to introduce fobble new word to replace "a" and "an"). The argument about whether a flat amount charge for local government services is a reasonable way of raising money could be taken elsewhere. But essentially it boils down to those who would willingly pay more for better public services being hobbled by those who can't afford to. If schools, roads, libraries etc all have to be run at a cost so that equally divided amongst the population the poorest can afford it, then they will be run at low cost and low quality. But I am sure anyone reading this thread doesn't want to get stuck into a long discussion on local government finance, on which I suspect I have more experience than you. Matthew Huntbach > There have been many attempts to invent new gender-free pronouns and > suffixes and the like. They do not work - language just cannot be changed > artificially in that way. I did once read of an attempt to solve the problem by creating a new four-letter pronoun from the words "she", "he", and "it" in that order---unfortunately, the result was a word already in use. -- Adam > Why not invent the term "pon" - obviously a > contraction of person - as a suffix? Then you could have a Chairpon, > Postpon, Firepon and so on. Oh, you're free to invent anything, and lots of people have suggested lots of gender-free words and suffixes. The difficulty is getting anyone to use them. Implementation. Now, if there was a profit motive... Does anyone see a way to make money on this? Companies invest tons of money on inventing and promoting brand names because they get it back in sales of actual products. However... SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > The sad thing is, that when a word is needed, people misuse another > word with a different meaning, rather than get a new word. There's actually a good reason for this. Suppose someone has a new concept that they want to talk about, so they need a word for it. If they make up a brand new word, it will seem like gibberish to anyone they talk to. They'll frequently have to precede the use with a definition, and then they have to depend on people memorizing this new word. On the other hand, if they make the new word by morphing from existing words or phrases, with related meanings, listeners will often be able to infer the new meaning from the old meanings and the context. They'll also find it easier to remember, because it can piggy-back on the brain cells that already attach the root words to their concepts. 100 years ago, a computer was a person. When electronic calculating machines were invented, they didn't make up a new word for the. A popular term for them for a while was "electronic brains", but eventually the word for the people whose jobs they replaced caught on. Have you read "The Power of Babel"? Very rarely in the history of human civilization have new words been created from whole cloth. Most words are adapted from other words. Language probably started out with a handful of words for body parts, pronouns, and verbs for the most basic actions (not coincidentally, these include most of the verbs with irregular conjugations). Most other words evolved from them. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** > > In article > > <f4cc83a0-3c8f-4a69-a980-7b9bc3733...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "'Themself'---yes, let's include that, it sounds like a word an > *American* would use, snicker snicker!" Actually, the British word is 'snigger' - an Oxford man would leave 'snickering' to the kind of people who consider baseball caps to be stylish. > :) :) :) > > -- Adam >> Oxford American Dictionary? The whole idea seems a bit oxymoronic... >> a group of erudite British scholars who no doubt think we over here [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> "'Themself'---yes, let's include that, it sounds like a word an >> *American* would use, snicker snicker!" > Actually, the British word is 'snigger' - an Oxford man would leave > 'snickering' to the kind of people who consider baseball caps to be > stylish. And singular they is well-established in informal (and recently quite ofetn seen in fairly formal) British English, it's certainly not viewed as an Americanism. If anything, I'd suspect it's one of those grammatical modernisations where AmE tends to be more conservative than BrE. Matthew Huntbach >The day "themself" is added to the English dictionary, I will begin >accepting "their" as a singular pronoun. I'll admit to singular "they" when I start hearing people say "they is." ¬R There's really no such thing as a Loser's Club. --Spot http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/emopvere.html Sorry! 1019 >> The day "themself" is added to the English dictionary, I will begin >> accepting "their" as a singular pronoun. > > I'll admit to singular "they" when I start hearing people say "they is." Dost thou say "you is", "thou art" or "you are"? If, like most peopl in these degenerate times, thou usest the last of these, how dost thou square it with thy principles? Signatureathel Athel wrote on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:11:01 +0200: ??>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:19:50 -0700 (PDT), Phil wrote: ??>>> The day "themself" is added to the English dictionary, I ??>>> will begin accepting "their" as a singular pronoun. ??>> ??>> I'll admit to singular "they" when I start hearing people ??>> say "they is." ACB> Dost thou say "you is", "thou art" or "you are"? If, like ACB> most peopl in these degenerate times, thou usest the last ACB> of these, how dost thou square it with thy principles? There's another question you might answer. Do you say "I'm a grammarian, aren't I?" or "I'm a grammarian amn't I?" I haven't come across the latter outside nineteenth century novels. James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > There's another question you might answer. Do you say "I'm a > grammarian, aren't I?" or "I'm a grammarian amn't I?" Apparently, I'm supposed to expect him to say "I's a grammarian." ¬R Glenn wrote on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:01:44 -0400: GK> James Silverton wrote: ??>> There's another question you might answer. Do you say "I'm ??>> a grammarian, aren't I?" or "I'm a grammarian amn't I?" GK> Apparently, I'm supposed to expect him to say "I's a GK> grammarian." I tend to feel that someone who has not bothered to find out who is "him" is not worthwhile continuing an argument! James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not On Apr 17, 4:14 pm, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silver...@verizon.not> wrote: > Glenn wrote on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:01:44 -0400: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > E-mail, with obvious alterations: > not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not Is anyone as amused as I am that a thread about whether a plural pronoun can be correctly used in reference to an singular antecedent has generated more discussion than virtually all of the previous hundreds of bridge threads? In my view, since the form has the blessing of the OED, at worst it can be called "sub-optimal" or "the height of linguistic laziness" for those who prefer a more formally correct construction in which singular pronouns follow singular nouns, but it certainly cannot be called "wrong" or "unacceptable." Henrysun909 In article <9d1a882d-df5b-4c49-b099-66ed6cc376b1@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > Is anyone as amused as I am that a thread about whether a plural > pronoun can be correctly used in reference to an singular antecedent > has generated more discussion than virtually all of the previous > hundreds of bridge threads? Did you notice that the thread is cross-posted to alt.usage.english? Cross-posting increases the number of people reading and replying to the thread. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** > Is anyone as amused as I am that a thread about whether a plural > pronoun can be correctly used in reference to an singular antecedent [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > singular pronouns follow singular nouns, but it certainly cannot be > called "wrong" or "unacceptable." The OED doesn't "bless" usages, it simply records and defines what it finds in the written language. Grammatical rules are more like the laws of physics than the laws of bridge; they are deduced from observation of the language. The OED is not the linguistic equivalent of the World Bridge Federation. > > Is anyone as amused as I am that a thread about whether a plural > > pronoun can be correctly used in reference to an singular antecedent [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the language. The OED is not the linguistic equivalent of the World > Bridge Federation. Right. For that, you have to look to the Academie Francaise. But I wonder how many French people really care what the Academie says. One big difference, though, between langusge and physics is that language rules are contingent, while laws of physics are generally considered to be permanent (when they change, it's because we didn't understand them accurately before, not because reality shifted). The problem with prescriptivists is that they don't admit the temporary nature of language rules. SignatureBarry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** > Right. For that, you have to look to the Academie Francaise. But I > wonder how many French people really care what the Academie says. The AF certainly doesn't get its way all the time, but the language today has certainly been affected by its efforts. > One big difference, though, between langusge and physics is that > language rules are contingent, while laws of physics are generally > considered to be permanent (when they change, it's because we didn't > understand them accurately before, not because reality shifted). The > problem with prescriptivists is that they don't admit the temporary > nature of language rules. "Everyone should speak English as my grandfather the Professor of Classics did" is obviously an extremist view; but "English teachers shouldn't try to correct their pupils' 'natural' speech and writing" is just the other extreme. Somewhere in between is the moderately prescriptive idea: "Of course language changes, but a collaborative effort can try to influence that change for aesthetics and usefulness." After all, no-one (AFAIK) claims that sociologists shouldn't vote or support a political campaign because they should abstain from trying to interfere in the societies that they study; I don't see why people who are interested in natural language should feel obligated to oppose *moderate* prescription. SignatureClassical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture, indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995) [...] > Somewhere in between is the moderately prescriptive idea: "Of course > language changes, but a collaborative effort can try to influence that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > who are interested in natural language should feel obligated to oppose > *moderate* prescription. There's actually something very wrong with such opposition (to the extent that it actually exists). As I usually say when this comes up, it's a curious freak of Anglophone history that leads us to get our democratic politics all mixed up with our attitudes to cultural matters, including our language. SignatureMike. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > [...] >> Somewhere in between is the moderately prescriptive idea: "Of course [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > democratic politics all mixed up with our attitudes to cultural matters, > including our language. It's hardly a freak of "Anglophone" history - language is rarely as political in English-speaking countries as it is for the French. The only mix of politics and language that come to my immediate memory is in the teaching of "Ebonics" in American schools. >> [...] >>> Somewhere in between is the moderately prescriptive idea: "Of course [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > only mix of politics and language that come to my immediate memory is > in the teaching of "Ebonics" in American schools. Got to collect somebody from the station, so no time to expand, but the "Ebonics" thing is merely an example of the kind of thing I meant. Note I said not merely "politics", but "democratic politics". SignatureMike. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >> [...] >>> Somewhere in between is the moderately prescriptive idea: "Of course [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's hardly a freak of "Anglophone" history - language is rarely as > political in English-speaking countries as it is for the French. If "the French" is short for "the French-speaking countries", then maybe you're right, at least so far as Canada is concerned, but if it means "the people who live in France" then it's an exaggeration. Signatureathel >>> [...] >>>> Somewhere in between is the moderately prescriptive idea: "Of course [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > maybe you're right, at least so far as Canada is concerned, but if it > means "the people who live in France" then it's an exaggeration. It was meant as "Francophone". The French language is a huge political issue here (in Canada), in Belgium, and certainly has been in France. They didn't create the Académie Française just for something to do... The French have a long history of trying to keep their language "pure" - and French-french look down on Walloons and Quebecois, Quebecois sneer at Acadiens, and Parisiens laugh at everyone. The English just roll right over everybody's languages, absorb what they want, and call it all English. >> There's another question you might answer. Do you say "I'm a >> grammarian, aren't I?" or "I'm a grammarian amn't I?" > > Apparently, I'm supposed to expect him to say "I's a grammarian." ITYM: Last week I couldn't of spelled grammarian, but I is one now! HTH, HAND. SignatureI spend almost as time figuring out what's wrong with my computer as I do actually using it. Networked software, especially, requires frequent updates and maintenance, all of which gets in the way of doing routine work. (Stoll 1995) > There's another question you might answer. Do you say "I'm a > grammarian, aren't I?" or "I'm a grammarian amn't I?" > I haven't come across the latter outside nineteenth century > novels. "Amn't" is still in use in Scotland. SignatureGordon Rainsford London UK >> There's another question you might answer. Do you say "I'm a >> grammarian, aren't I?" or "I'm a grammarian amn't I?" >> I haven't come across the latter outside nineteenth century >> novels. > >"Amn't" is still in use in Scotland. The only person I ever heard use it was Desmond Tutu, but long before he became a bishop. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > > There's another question you might answer. Do you say "I'm a > > grammarian, aren't I?" or "I'm a grammarian amn't I?" > > I haven't come across the latter outside nineteenth century > > novels. > > "Amn't" is still in use in Scotland. I had an Irish friend who used it. (This was twenty years ago, but she probably still does.) SignatureSML >> > There's another question you might answer. Do you say "I'm a >> > grammarian, aren't I?" or "I'm a grammarian amn't I?" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I had an Irish friend who used it. (This was twenty years ago, but she > probably still does.) Wasn't "aint I" (or "a'in't I") - which, after all, is a perfectly logical contraction of "am I not" - also used by respectable people during the 19th century. Or is my memory playing me tricks? SignatureLes On 18 Apr, 09:58, grbridgeREMOVET...@btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) wrote: > > There's another question you might answer. Do you say "I'm a > > grammarian, aren't I?" or "I'm a grammarian amn't I?" > > I haven't come across the latter outside nineteenth century > > novels. > > "Amn't" is still in use in Scotland. That's all this thread needed - a spot of cultural relativism from Gordon "Mumbai" Rainsford! And don't forget! After reaching middle age, a person should get his or her cervix checked regularly, also his or her prostate; while a woman of any age should check their breasts. > -- > Gordon Rainsford > > London UK > On 18 Apr, 09:58, grbridgeREMOVET...@btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > or her cervix checked regularly, also his or her prostate; while a > woman of any age should check their breasts. So should the men of any age, aina? > Dost thou say "you is", "thou art" or "you are"? Hmmmm. I started to object that singular "they" differed from other third-person singulars only in gender, and we don't conjugate verbs by gender in Germanic languages. Then I realized you might be getting at something deeper than that. Singular "you" did coexist with "thou" for centuries as a formal form, plural in form but singular in sense. I suppose singular "they" could be thought of as applying to unknown people the same way formal second-person pronouns are used for unfamiliar people. Sadly, that probably won't stop it from sounding to me like a broken pencil on a chalkboard. ¬R >> Dost thou say "you is", "thou art" or "you are"? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sadly, that probably won't stop it from sounding to me like a broken > pencil on a chalkboard. It seems to me --and I must surely have said this before --that we're looking at style here, not correctness. In some situations it will be completely inappropriate and intolerable, but sometimes it will be more acceptable than a work-around. SignatureMike. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >> The day "themself" is added to the English dictionary, I will begin >> accepting "their" as a singular pronoun. > I'll admit to singular "they" when I start hearing people say "they is." So you don't admit to singular-you on the grounds we say "you are"? Well, thou canst stick to thy point if thou wishest, but I think most of us have accepted that singular you is here to stay.. Matthew Huntbach > >The day "themself" is added to the English dictionary, I will begin > >accepting "their" as a singular pronoun. > > I'll admit to singular "they" when I start hearing people say "they is." But the conjugation of the third person plural of to be is "they are". If we come up with a new singular third person pronoun, we can use the third person singular verb. We have the somewhat awkaward "that person" in "If anyone believes that, then that person is seriously deranged!" I've taught many nonnative English speakers simply to use the plural whenever possible. It keeps them from having to recognize the gender and countability of nouns. The genders of English nouns is pretty easy (and makes sense even to most foreigners). The countabililty, by way of contrast, is often considered "an attribute randomly assigned to nominatives so as to distingush native speakers from foreigners". I don't know if anyone else has noticed it, but in my generic Bridge writing, I try to use masculine pronouns for Opener and Overcaller, but feminine ones for Responder and Advancer. > The day "themself" is added to the English dictionary, I will begin > accepting "their" as a singular pronoun. According to the OED: The original construction was nom., acc. _hí_, _héo selfe_, dat. _heom selfum_, whence ME. _hemselve(n_, etc. In 14th c. this was superseded in north. dial. by _þaim self(e_, _þaim selven_, and in Standard Eng. _themself_ was the normal form to _c_ 1540, but disappeared c 1570. _Themselfs_, _themselves_ appears c 1500, and became the standard form c 1540. With a singular referent, they cite "theym self" to 1464. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Algebra? But that's far too 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |difficult for seven-year-olds!" Palo Alto, CA 94304 | |"Yes, but I didn't tell them that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and so far they haven't found out," (650)857-7572 |said Susan. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> The day "themself" is added to the English dictionary, I will begin >> accepting "their" as a singular pronoun. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > With a singular referent, they cite "theym self" to 1464. You don't think he's going to be swayed by mere evidence, do you? (Or maybe he was quoting from something written in 1465). Signatureathel >> The day "themself" is added to the English dictionary, I will begin >> accepting "their" as a singular pronoun. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > With a singular referent, they cite "theym self" to 1464. Very interesting, Evan. Thank you. So "self" has a legitimate plural history. I don't mind that, but it seems to have been lost, and the people who continue to use it with "them" are doing it out of some habit, rather than knowledge of history. I am really interested in "theym", which, while it appears to be "them" could just as easily have been "thine". . .or not. In the OED citation for "self", what does the underscore indicate? _heom selfum_ _hi_ etc. In alt.usage.english Pat Durkin <durk183@sbc.com> wrote: <snip> : I am really interested in "theym", which, while it appears to be "them" : could just as easily have been "thine". . .or not. In the OED citation : for "self", what does the underscore indicate? _heom selfum_ _hi_ : etc. I think it's a substitute for italics. -- Joshua Holmes - jdholmes@stwing.org Per aspera, luctor et emergo. >>> The day "themself" is added to the English dictionary, I will begin >>> accepting "their" as a singular pronoun. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I am really interested in "theym", which, while it appears to be > "them" could just as easily have been "thine". . .or not. In this case, it's almost certainly "them", as it's taken from the entry for "themselves". They note in a different sense of the same entry that "their" has been substituted since the fourteenth century, with citations from that century for "þair-self" and "þaire-seluen" (both plural). > In the OED citation for "self", what does the underscore indicate? > _heom selfum_ _hi_ etc. It's just what I use to indicate what they put in italics. In this case they're indicating particular Old English word forms. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |looking on the bright side of any Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking |on the bright side, the catastrophe kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |is still there. (650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > A linguistics professor, no less, at UC Berkeley (I would mention his > name if I remembered it) told me he likes this usage. After all what > is one to do? One is to show some familiarity with the introductory postings in a newsgroup before introducing a cross-posting into it. In this case: | Newsgroups: alt.usage.english | Subject: Intro A: Welcome to AUE and Guidelines for Posting | Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:55:37 +0000 (UTC) | Message-ID: <ftjs2o$pf9$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> | From: trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) ... | Things you may want to consider avoiding when posting here: | | (1) re-opening topics (such as "singular they" and "hopefully") that | experience shows lead to circular debate. (One function of the FAQ | file is to point out topics that have already been discussed ad | nauseam.) > "His or her" sometimes passes but it's continual usage is jarring... In alt.usage.english it's also advisable to know the correct spellings of one's 3-letter words. SignatureMark Brader | "The problem with waiting for a 'smoking gun' is Toronto | that it means the gun has already been fired." msb@vex.net | --Michael Chance Mark wrote on Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:37:13 -0500: MB> Charles Brenner writes: ??>> A linguistics professor, no less, at UC Berkeley (I would ??>> mention his name if I remembered it) told me he likes this ??>> usage. After all what is one to do? MB> One is to show some familiarity with the introductory MB> postings in a newsgroup before introducing a cross-posting MB> into it. In this case: ??|> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english ??|> Subject: Intro A: Welcome to AUE and Guidelines for Posting ??|> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:55:37 +0000 (UTC) ??|> Message-ID: <ftjs2o$pf9$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> ??|> From: trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) MB> ... ??|> Things you may want to consider avoiding when posting here: ??|> ??|> (1) re-opening topics (such as "singular they" and ??|> "hopefully") that experience shows lead to circular ??|> debate. (One function of the FAQ file is to point out ??|> topics that have already been discussed ad nauseam.) ??>> "His or her" sometimes passes but it's continual usage is ??>> jarring... MB> In alt.usage.english it's also advisable to know the MB> correct spellings of one's 3-letter words. MB> -- MB> Mark Brader | "The problem with waiting for a 'smoking MB> gun' is Toronto |> that it means the gun has already been Toronto |> fired." MB> msb@vex.net | --Michael MB> Chance I found the singular usage to be a little jarring when I first saw it used on the London Times web page years ago. After a little while, I decided it was less clumsy than his/her and have used it ever since, usually without comment even in the US. James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > > A linguistics professor, no less, at UC Berkeley (I would mention his > > name if I remembered it) told me he likes this usage. After all what [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Toronto | that it means the gun has already been fired." > m...@vex.net | --Michael Chance Thanks Mark, for the helpful comments. I was shocked, myself, to notice after posting that I'd either mistyped or misspelled "its". You are of course correct the popularly held rule on Usenet that such errors should pass without comment is too lenient and merely encourages miscreants. Charles ... snip ... >>> "His or her" sometimes passes but it's continual usage is jarring... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > such errors should pass without comment is too lenient and merely > encourages miscreants. This is newsgroup sensitive. Here, in r.g.b, it should be ignored. However, in a.u.e, the miscreants should immediately be placed firmly on the extremities of the plank. Signature[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> Try the download section. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** [...] >> "His or her" sometimes passes but it's continual usage is jarring... > > In alt.usage.english it's also advisable to know the correct spellings > of one's 3-letter words. You is not wrong, but don't be too hard on what seems like some pretty sensible blokage. Once again I invoke the grammatically wayward spirit of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames: "Responsible dog owners already clear up after their dog." SignatureMike. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames: "Responsible dog owners already clear > up after their dog." Maybe keeping a dog in R/Th has become so expensive that all the responsible owners club together to maintain the one dog? Clearing up can't be too arduous if shared among the many. Nothing to do with this, but thoughts of R/Th made me think of Tunbridge Wells, which in turn made me wonder if the recent appearance of Tom Thumb in this group is the latest incarnation of Archie Valparaíso (a.k.a. T.H. Entity (a.k.a. Ross Howard))? I seem to detect some similar of style, and we don't seem to have seen Archie V. recently. Signatureathel >> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >some similar of style, and we don't seem to have seen Archie V. >recently. Maybe he's run away with Vinny Burgoo. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>> [...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Maybe he's run away with Vinny Burgoo. On 7 Apr 2008 "Tom Thumb" said: Well, they certainly baffle the Thais here in Bangkok. Of course he, with or without VB, might have moved on since then. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames: "Responsible dog owners already clear >up after their dog." This reminded me of my proposed money-making scam. Some London Underground stations have signs reading "dogs must be carried on the escalator". Find which of these is most used by tourists, particularly German tourists. Set up a stall there, underneath the sign, offering little dogs for hire, a pound each. The tourists will be instructed to drop their dogs once they reach the top of the escalator; and in any case, the dogs will be trained to jump free when they get there, and to run back down the stairs. Nick SignatureNick Wedd nick@maproom.co.uk > This reminded me of my proposed money-making scam. > > Some London Underground stations have signs reading "dogs must be > carried on the escalator". Find which of these is most used by > tourists, particularly German tourists. Set up a stall there, > underneath the sign, offering little dogs for hire, a pound each. ... Don't forget to tell them that they must have each have at least two dogs. SignatureMark Brader | "(I've been told that I suffer from rampant narcissism. Toronto | Just to confirm the accuracy of this character assessment, msb@vex.net | I have now shared it with the whole world.)" --Laura Spira Mark Brader filted: >> This reminded me of my proposed money-making scam. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Don't forget to tell them that they must have each have at least two dogs. Then smile seraphically, as is your wont....r SignatureWhat good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone? > This reminded me of my proposed money-making scam. > > Some London Underground stations have signs reading "dogs must be > carried on the escalator". I believe I've mentioned my disappointment upon getting to a restaurant in London and being confronted by a sign that read "Part-Time Cook Required" and realizing that we didn't have one. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Just sit right back 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | and you'll hear a tale, Palo Alto, CA 94304 | a tale of the Stanford red |That started when a little boy kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | named Leland did drop dead (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> A linguistics professor, no less, at UC Berkeley (I would mention his >> name if I remembered it) told me he likes this usage. After all what [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > | file is to point out topics that have already been discussed ad > | nauseam.) Maybe you're being unfair. There can't have been more 5817 postings on this subject before in this group, in no more than 823 different threads, and no more than 100 or so posts so far this year. Signatureathel >> A linguistics professor, no less, at UC Berkeley (I would mention his >> name if I remembered it) told me he likes this usage. After all what [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > In alt.usage.english it's also advisable to know the correct spellings > of one's 3-letter words. Are you saying there should be no "their" there? Mmbridge ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.games.bridge.] : the traditional custom that "his" serves both sexes is : increasingly dissonant with the times (but perhaps less so in the UK : than US). As both «his» and «her» are, at times, used to refer to unknown gender, I fail to see the problem. As a non-native, non-learned speaker I shall not speak of correctness, but both appear common in my limited and not necessarily representative sample. I did hear one claim that the traditional rule is that the author's gender be used as neutral. The logical alternative is to use «its» as gender neutral :-) It used to work for Esperanto until too many of its speakers came from English-speaking backgrounds... :-- Hans Georg http://www.ii.uib.no/~georg/ `This Universe never did make sense; I suspect that it was built on government contract.' (Heinlein) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.